backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 289 comment(s) - last by spepper.. on Dec 14 at 11:15 AM
Claims IPCC estimates are bunk; Observational data shows no sea level rise trend

Note: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University's department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.
 
A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.
 
The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.
 
Sea level changes can be detected by a number of methods. Rotational timing is a very precise method, and is based on the fact that a change in the earth's radius will cause minute differences in it's rate of rotation. A rise in sea level increases the radius slightly, and can therefore be detected by precisely timing when the sun rises and sets. This method can detect changes in sea level as small as one millimeter. Data collected in this manner has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend.
 
Satellite altimetry is another method. Mörner says that, in 2003, The IPCC's altimetry dataset, which had previously displayed no clear trend, suddenly changed, with past readings modified to show a strong uplift. Though corrections to datasets are supposed to be clearly announced and identified, this was done secretly, and not labeled. When Mörner inquired about the discrepancy, he was told the readings had been adjusted by a "correction factor".  
 
Where did this factor come from? The least precise method of measuring sea level is tide gauge records. These are problematic as the land under the gauge may itself be rising or falling. Hong Kong maintains six tide gauges, five of which show no trend. The sixth, located on land where compaction is causing the ground to sink, was chosen by the IPCC as the correction factor for global altimetry data.
 
Tide gauges kept in the sensitive areas of Pacific and Indian Ocean islands show a different story. In Vanuatu, Tegua, and the Tuvalu Islands, gauge records show no trend at all. In the Maldives, tide gauges kept from the 1950s show a small drop in the 1970s, and no change since.
 
More shocking is Mörner's claim of the destruction of evidence. A famous low-lying tree in the Maldives has long been a marker for sea-level change, and noted in several research papers. But when an Australian team visited the island on a data-gathering trip, they saw the tree and pulled it down, according to local eyewitnesses. Mörner's team later replanted the tree in the same spot.
 
Climatologist and IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr. Madhav Khandekar, contacted by DailyTech in regards to this story, also believes SLR is being exaggerated by the IPCC.   Khandekar says SLR over the next 100 years will be "insignificant" and pointed to recent research demonstrating SLR had actually declined in the latter half of the 20th century.
 
Dr. Mörner also had harsh words for the Maldives government. When the Maldives Sea Level Project concluded there was no threat to from rising sea levels, a documentary was made to reassure residents. The government, however, banned airing of the film. According to Mörner, the rationale for the ban was financial. The Maldives stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in climate change aid from Western governments.  "Because they thought that they would lose money." He said, "They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, so they wanted the flooding scenario to go on."
 
Mörner says it's becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research. In the European Community, a prerequisite for research grants is that the focus must be on global warming. Papers which don't support global warming aren't funded. "That's what dictatorships did, autocracies." He added, "They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted."
 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hmm
By semler on 12/11/2007 11:20:00 AM , Rating: 1
I seem to remember from my childhood an experiment from science class where you take a glass, put ice cubes in it, then fill it with water up to the rim. The teacher then asks you to guess if the water will overflow or not, and lo and behold, the ice melts and the water level stays the same.

I realize the Earth is more complex than a glass of ice water, but would the results be somewhat similar?




RE: Hmm
By mdogs444 on 12/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm
By TITAN1080 on 12/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm
By James Holden on 12/11/2007 11:35:23 AM , Rating: 5
There's a phenomena for that. It's called erosion.


RE: Hmm
By Cygni on 12/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm
By napalmjack on 12/11/2007 12:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really think that erosion is the culprit here, but you can't totally downplay it's role.

Erosion doesn't "dunk" landmasses into the ocean. It scours away at it's foundation. 20 years of this could definitely do some damage.
"80 to 90 percent of sandy beaches are currently eroding at rates of only a few inches to over 50 feet per year along the outer coastline of Louisiana"
http://drbeach.org/drbeach/physical_therapy.htm

Anyway, I don't really agree with you. But, I don't think that the example given was entirely valid. So there you have it.


RE: Hmm
By camped69 on 12/11/2007 7:15:46 PM , Rating: 1
The UN is a joke. Global warming will be used to tax the entire world and further their agenda. There are 1000's of scientists who disagree that global warming is occurring and/or detrimental to the planet. Wake UP People!


RE: Hmm
By martinrichards23 on 12/12/2007 3:37:51 AM , Rating: 3
And there are many more who say it is happening. In world of science that is the best you can expect.

It is those who only hear what they want to hear who need to wake up.


RE: Hmm
By BBeltrami on 12/12/2007 2:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Science is not a popularity contest. Your choice to ignore the scientific method is YOUR choice. But to suggest that in "a world of science", scientific consensus is "the best you can expect" is sad and pathetic, not compelling.


RE: Hmm
By tmouse on 12/11/2007 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Oh well if National Geographic channel says so it must be so. I especially like their "documentaries" on ghosts and aliens which air during sweep weeks. But seriously the sea could be rising (which multiple studies show is simply not true, or the land could be eroding or sinking.


RE: Hmm
By Moishe on 12/11/2007 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 3
You're welcome to believe what you see on TV. I'm not saying you're wrong.... but these scientists that Asher is talking... they ARE saying you're wrong.

When I have to choose between you or them, sorry but I choose them.

It's very easy for TV to show "evidence" and label it as fact without showing any proof. Equations like "This house was here relative to the water, now it's here" are useless on their own. I also love the term "documentary" because it seems to inherently mean that it's just a lot of facts. But it hasn't meant that in a long, long time. A documentary now is just a movie that has a non-fiction topic that the author wants you to believe.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 4
It's also very easy for a scientist to disagree in an INTERVIEW (not a peer-reviewed scientific document) and have them posted on the internet for the masses. Interesting how everyone sort of believes what they want to hear - whether it be on Nat Geo or on DailyTech.

I'm sure I'll get rated down for being skeptical of one skeptic; especially when he posts this in an interview and has not subjected his claims to the peer review process - at least that I could find in the article.

His claims (at least in the interview) sound an awful lot like a claim of a "conspiracy" of global warming. Even the interviewer is great at asking some leading questions.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM


RE: Hmm
By masher2 (blog) on 12/11/2007 2:07:46 PM , Rating: 3
All good points. However, Mörner's views have been published in many peer-reviwed journals.

For references besides Mörner, one can look at Holgate (2007), Geophysical Research Letters 34, or Jevrejeva et al. (2006) Journal of Geophysical Research 111.


RE: Hmm
By RogueSpear on 12/11/2007 2:24:09 PM , Rating: 4
All you need to do is Google this guy's name and see that he has a long history offering up "opinions" and giving interviews, speeches, etc. denying any sort of human influence on climate change. The very first search result even shows he has a flair dishonesty by misrepresenting himself.

Well this was certainly a "fair and balanced"(TM) article.


RE: Hmm
By porkpie on 12/11/2007 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
OMG, a scientist who offers his opinion and gives interviews and speeches! What was he thinking!

Come to think of it, I don't know any scientists that DON'T do that.


RE: Hmm
By RogueSpear on 12/11/2007 2:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is that he's not attempting to do anything other than cause controversy. He has little to no data supporting his claims but I'm sure somewhere he has a vested interest in his position.


RE: Hmm
By porkpie on 12/11/2007 4:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Little to no data such as decades of tide level readings, satellite altimetry data, and rotational timing?

You might want to try that one on again, cuz it ain't fitting.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 5:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
So the data everyone else uses (which is often the same data) is wrong when it predicts SLR, but right when he predicts it to mean that nothing will happen in regard to SLR?

For the record, I don't think SLR is a proven thing that's going to threaten humanity, nor do I think Morner (or anyone else) has proven that there's nothing to be concerned about with regard to SLR.

Since we have a relatively limited (a few decades with regard to Earth's history is like a couple milliseconds in a human lifetime) in regard to SLR, so I don't think we can draw any safe conclusions about the future from such a limited data set.


RE: Hmm
By porkpie on 12/11/2007 6:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since we have a relatively limited (a few decades with regard to Earth's history is like a couple milliseconds in a human lifetime) in regard to SLR, so I don't think we can draw any safe conclusions about the future from such a limited data set.
Cool, we both agree the subject is being totally overhyped then.


RE: Hmm
By Rovemelt on 12/11/2007 9:31:05 PM , Rating: 1
Except that you assume that Masher is being honest with his "facts."

Satellite data and rotational timing data does clearly show rising ocean levels. Masher just left the consensus view and facts out of his article. The majority of climate scientists interpret the rotational timing data differently than Masher and, contrary to what Masher states above, tide gages aren't used to calibrate satellite data anymore. I provide the link to the manuscript that spells it out in a previous post. I can repost it if you want to read for yourself.


RE: Hmm
By onelittleindian on 12/11/2007 9:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
From the paper Masher eluded to in the thread.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492...

It took me a bit to dig it up but it was worth it. This research (done by a totally different scientist) shows sea level rise has decreased lately. Totally the opposite of what the IPCC is saying. Sounds like Masher is spot-on here.


RE: Hmm
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/11/2007 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 5
If you Google for my name the 3rd or 4th link that shows up is some clown at Tom's Hardware that says I'm getting Hormone Replacement Therapy. I'm not, but that doesn't mean the people who Google my name think so.


RE: Hmm
By Dachsund on 12/11/2007 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty clear from the article that the hormone therapy bit is nonsensical. The article states outright this is based on "rumors out of nowhere."

From what I read, it seems that DailyTech refused to post a retraction when a poorly sourced news article about THG's editor was posted, and if that's the case, I can see how people would be upset. In either case, this doesn't support your point.


RE: Hmm
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/11/2007 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 3
We don't post retractions to correct articles. He's just mad that we wouldn't take it down.


RE: Hmm
By Mitch101 on 12/11/2007 3:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
Everything on the internet is true. ;)

What's next Santa Clause isn't true?


RE: Hmm
By clovell on 12/11/2007 3:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the internet has conflicting opinions on this topic, so we just assume that Santa must enjoy chilling out with Schrodinger's Cat at a bar called the Black Box.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 1
So what of those who disagree with Morner's views? Clearly, the lack of consensus doesn't prove Morner right anymore than his unfounded accusations of conspiracy prove IPCC wrong. While IPCC certainly has their own motivations for what they do, Morner certainly has his as well. Maybe he's a little miffed about being left off the IPCC panel since he's "unbeaten" in SLR research and feels everyone else is inferior.

Again, making claims of conspiracy doesn't add to the discussion: it poisons the climate (pun intended) of the debate because a conspiracy is very difficult to prove. It goes outside the science and plays on people's emotions.

I'm especially skeptical of a scientist who claims, in an interview, that he is "unbeaten" by any of his colleagues. That, to me, does not indicate a mind that is open to the possibility that he is wrong. Rather, that indicates to me he is likely only to look at evidence that supports his views and ignore or suppress other evidence.

Even Einstein wasn't right about everything in his theories.


RE: Hmm
By Hawkido on 12/12/2007 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 1
Nice!!!

And to Illustrate how important Peer-Reviewed Scientific Fact is (DrumRoll Please):

The World is Flat
All that can be learned has been learned (Pre-1900)
Man cannot fly
Alternating Current is a Perpetual Motion Scam and cannot be used for anything useful
The moon is made of cheese
Women cannot serve in government because during their mensus all their blood goes to their uterus and thus deprives their brain of the needed oxygen for thinking rationally.

Golly, need I go on? Where would we be without Peers?
</Sarcasm>

Ever hear of Peer pressure in a positive way?

Remember it only takes one person to be right. It takes his peers to burn him at the stake for it.

Who is getting paid for the lie one way or another?

Some say the Oil companies are paying scientist (that's not peer reviewed, but they don't complain about that.)

The GW Scientists ARE getting paid by US tax dollars and other countries as well. Plus the UN is seeking to TAX all industrialized countries for more research. This is public knowledge.

Oh and then there are reparations charged against the US and other countries and given to the dictators... I mean the poor people in oppressed... I mean poor war-torn countries. Remember, each of these "unfortunate" countries has a vote in the UN... The US only has one (But we have Veto power.)

So, which conspiracy do you believe is more likely? Which candidate are you going to vote for?


RE: Hmm
By Yames on 12/13/2007 4:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
His claims (at least in the interview) sound an awful lot like a claim of a "conspiracy" of global warming. Even the interviewer is great at asking some leading questions.

The UN has been involved in conspiracies before. Oil for Food ring a bell?


RE: Hmm
By SandmanWN on 12/11/2007 2:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ice that is floating on water has already displaced its mass; so it doesn't matter if it is liquid or solid

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't water expand when frozen? Therefore water in a solid state, such as being frozen, should have a slightly higher displacement than liquid water.

Example, filling an ice tray to the rim and then freezing it. Upon returning to the ice tray the ice will be slightly above the rim.

Another example would be the last Ice Age where water covered a much higher percentage of the earth's surface yet today there is far more land than existed some 18000 years ago at the coast line.

So I hypothesize... If all the Ice at sea melts then the water level of the Ocean should decrease. The Ice from the land would not have the same mass in its liquid form. Add the liquid water from the land into a shrinking sea and there should be a canceling out for some portion of the water from land. I don't know the exact displacement of Ice in the water vs Ice on land so that is only a hypothesis but it would be interesting to know the exact numbers.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 3:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, freshwater does expand when frozen and it expands when heating. If you look up the thermal properties of water, you will find it to be at it's most dense when it is a few degrees above its freezing point.

Here's a basic explanation of what happens to saltwater as it freezes:

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solut...

This attribute of freshwater is what (in part) enables fish and other organisms to survive through the winter under a frozen lake. Oxygen-rich water at the top of the lake sinks as it cools in the open air and the less-oxygen rich water at the bottom of the lake is now warmer than the water at the surface, causing it to rise and become more oxygenated. If this did not occur, the water at the bottom of the lake would constantly be oxygen poor. And since the lake would be frozen, no oxygen could be exchanged at the surface which would mean the lake would support less (if any) organisms that require oxygen.

Saltwater freezes at a much lower point (fully saturated saltwater freezes at -21.1 C as opposed to freshwater at 0 C) than does freshwater - which is why we have icebergs and why icebergs can float: saltwater has a different specific gravity from freshwater.


RE: Hmm
By beckster02 on 12/11/2007 11:26:39 PM , Rating: 3
The displacement isn't volume, it's mass. If you place an ice cube or two into a glass and fill it with water to the rim, the melting ice won't cause the water to overflow because it has already displaced the mass that it would take up if it were liquid. The sea levels SHOULD stay the same, but we're also dealing with a completely different scale when talking about ice caps and sea levels than a glass with a couple of ice cubes.

Whether the water is solid or liquid, there's still the same amount of water even though the ice takes up more space.


RE: Hmm
By Brockway on 12/12/2007 2:02:24 AM , Rating: 4
Eureka!


RE: Hmm
By SandmanWN on 12/12/2007 9:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you place an ice cube or two into a glass and fill it with water to the rim, the melting ice won't cause the water to overflow because it has already displaced the mass that it would take up if it were liquid.

Obviously it won't overflow. It should however lower the water level as the ice cubes melt since water expands when frozen and contracts at room temp.

It is the same amount of water but at various states it does have a higher displacement.


RE: Hmm
By SandmanWN on 12/12/2007 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and displacement does not mean mass when it comes to liquid. Displacement in a liquid is how much of the liquid is pushed aside when a foreign object is placed into it. Therefore two objects that have a higher density than water but are both the same size will have equal displacement in water even though they may have a different mass from one another.

Example: A one square foot block of aluminum and a one square foot block of steel. Both displace the same amount of water but undoubtedly the aluminum block would have far less mass.


RE: Hmm
By rcc on 12/12/2007 1:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Bad analogy as you are talking about something that will sink, so yes, displacement will be the same. However, if you want it to float you have to configure it (like a ship hull) to displace more water for the heavier material.

Since ice expands at it freezes, i.e. same mass in a larger area, it is less dense that the water around it, and it floats.


RE: Hmm
By SandmanWN on 12/12/2007 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, but the entire object does not sit above the water line. There is an immense portion of ice that is displacing the water below the iceberg. So as the less dense ice melts and becomes more dense in its liquid state it fills in the area that was previously being displaced by the higher volume less dense ice below it.

The analogy works just fine as only a small portion of an iceberg exists above the water line.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 11:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you were to heat the water, the volume would not change. Heated water would have a larger volume than cold water due to thermal expansion. In a glass of water, it would be hard to notice without precise measurement tools. But in a large hot water heating system (for example), you have to account for the increase in volume by sizing a thermal expansion tank.


RE: Hmm
By SandmanWN on 12/11/2007 2:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is also true for frozen vs "room" temp water as boiling vs room temp water. It expands at both ends of the spectrum.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 4:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and this article is being used to refute global warming. However, if the ice melted into water, and that water got warmer, the ice would shrink from ice then expand again as it heated, if you want to follow your hypothesis a little further.


RE: Hmm
By SandmanWN on 12/12/2007 10:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
By the time water reached the other end of the spectrum where it actually expanded again the earth would already be at a point with which it could no longer support life anyway. Don't recall the temp exactly but I think its around 150F when people are no longer capable of surviving due to sweat becoming an ineffective means of cooling the body. The water expansion happens somewhere around ~200F IIRC.

We would be long passed due before the expansion of water was a great concern.


RE: Hmm
By phattyboombatty on 12/11/2007 1:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't water in ice form have a greater volume than water in liquid form? In your example, the water level should drop slightly when the ice melts.


RE: Hmm
By Rovemelt on 12/11/2007 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
A floating ice mass melting won't change the water level around it. So the arctic ice mass melting shouldn't affect water levels. If greenland and the antarctic melt (which aren't floating), we will see a dramatic change in ocean levels. Water expands slightly when warmed which may also affect ocean water levels if the planet warms.

I guess the people of Tuvalu must be imagining the rising sea levels.

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm


RE: Hmm
By masher2 (blog) on 12/11/2007 2:13:16 PM , Rating: 4
From the articles in your own link:

quote:
There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat .


And again, in a different story cited in your link:

quote:
Expert Says too Early to Assess if Sea Level Rising. Pacific island Forum leaders meeting in the New Zealand city of Auckland next month will be told that it's too soon to say if sea level rise is actually an established fact and a potentially serious problem.


And yet a third story, which establishes Tuvalu's motivation for supporting the SLR hypothesis:

quote:
Tiny Tuvalu Sues United States Over Rising Sea Level...


RE: Hmm
By Rovemelt on 12/11/2007 3:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if Tuvalu is actually experiencing rising ocean levels or not. Ocean level rise can be local, so some spots will rise more than others. But this doesn't change the fact that ocean levels are rising around the planet:

http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/rg0403/2003RG000139...

From the above link regarding your argument about an altimeter correction based on tide gauge readings:

quote:
While in the past we have used the tide gauge calibration values as direct corrections to the altimeter data, recent improvements in the sea state bias correction [Chambers et al., 2003] now make this unnecessary, as the curve is relatively flat . In summary, the altimetric results are considered to be extremely robust, and the estimate of sea level rise of 2.8 ± 0.4 mm/yr over the last decade is very reliable within these error bars.


Looks like your argument is crumbling.


RE: Hmm
By masher2 (blog) on 12/11/2007 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 4
How do you reconcile your statement:
quote:
I don't know if Tuvalu is actually experiencing rising ocean levels or not
With this one in your post immediately prior?
quote:
I guess the people of Tuvalu must be imagining the rising sea levels.

In any case, allow me to correct the presumption that I am in some manner "analyzing" the data or even expressing my own opinion. I'm merely reporting a story. Morner -- indisputably one of the world's top experts on sea level -- is the one expressing an opinion here. Is he correct? Form your own opinion. The purpose of good journalism is to report facts and let people judge for themselves.


RE: Hmm
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 5:00:18 PM , Rating: 1
I think the IPCC panel is made up largely of people who are "indisputably" experts on the topic of climate change in various specialties. Yet somehow, your articles always serve to undermine their "indisputable" expert credentials. I'd find your reporting to be more balanced if you published news here relating to articles that support, as well as refute, the ideas of climate change.

So no, I don't think Morner is any more or less "indisputable" than any other climate scientist in any of the specialties. This information he's presenting (the science part at least, not the conspiracy accusations) are valuable, but far from indisputable - regardless of the source's credentials.


RE: Hmm
By masher2 (blog) on 12/11/2007 6:40:23 PM , Rating: 4
> "I think the IPCC panel is made up largely of people who are "indisputably" experts on the topic of climate change in various specialties."

Not according to Morner. His claim is that, of the 22 authors chosen to write about sea-level change, none are seal-level specialists.

> "I'd find your reporting to be more balanced if you published news here relating to articles that support, as well as refute, the ideas of climate change."

Any bit of news that supports the idea of climate change is quickly trumpeted from coast to coast. You'd have to live under a rock to miss it. The purpose of my column is to educate readers by giving them information they would otherwise not have heard. As such, I feel its far more balanced than what you're likely to read in the CNN environmental section.


RE: Hmm
By Rovemelt on 12/11/2007 9:19:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm merely reporting a story. Morner -- indisputably one of the world's top experts on sea level -- is the one expressing an opinion here.


Wrong. You are not merely reporting what Morner says in an interview--notice you didn't write any of his quotes from the interview verbatim. Rather, you declared:

quote:
Data collected in this manner has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend.


That data can be interpreted many different ways, yet you explain it as if it were fact. That is not not established fact...most scientists interpret this data differently in the scientific community.

quote:
Is he correct? Form your own opinion. The purpose of good journalism is to report facts and let people judge for themselves.


Ok, so when are you going to start presenting the facts? Like the fact that the mantle is liquid and hence can affect rotation of the planet? Or the fact that tidal gages aren't used to correct satellite data anymore? Did you forget to include that fact or are you just intellectually lazy? If you presented all the facts as best they are known, nobody here would believe that the ocean levels are changing. This is precisely why you don't present the facts...because they don't fit your agenda.


RE: Hmm
By masher2 (blog) on 12/11/2007 9:33:07 PM , Rating: 3
> "That data can be interpreted many different ways"

Which is why I chose to not "interpret" the data. The raw data itself indicates exactly what was said-- that sea level has both risen and fallen. That is fact...and it doesn't preclude the possibility that the data is in error or need of adjustment.

> "Or the fact that tidal gages aren't used to correct satellite data anymore?"

Your previous link identified one specific team which no longer used a tidal gauge correction. That doesn't disprove Morner's statement, that the IPCC used such a correction to influence their data set.

I realize you want every story on global warming to fit a certain agenda. However, the standards of journalism are clear. Morner made an assertion. The IPCC was contacted in regards to this story to give them an opportunity to counter that assertion. They failed to do so. I then contacted two other scientists who, though neither had a view as strong as Morner's, both agreed that the IPCC was inflating the issue. The facts were reported just as they were, without any spin.

That's journalism. If you want advocacy, find another column. CNN's environmental section might be a good start.


RE: Hmm
By Rovemelt on 12/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm
By porkpie on 12/12/2007 1:00:27 AM , Rating: 3
You're notorious Rove, and you follow the same modus operandi in every thread. First you make a bunch of personal attacks on Asher, then you trot out a link and pretend it counters something. Finally you start raving about conspiracy theories and agendas. Its getting pretty old.

Yes, your link shows some scientists think sea level is rising. So? That's pretty clear from reading the article already. The article even QUOTES a scientist who believes in sea level rise. Did you miss that part? Or were you too eager to post personal insults to read that far in?

Your real beef isn't the facts in the article, its that they weren't spun in a way that would force us all to believe the UN version of events. Sorry but I'll make up my own mind.


RE: Hmm
By Ajax9000 on 12/12/2007 7:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting choice of reference Rovemelt. The last few sentences of the abstract are:
quote:
Another important result of satellite altimetry concerns the nonuniform geographical distribution of sea level change, with some regions exhibiting trends about 10 times the global mean. Thermal expansion appears responsible for the observed regional variability. For the past 50 years, sea level trends caused by change in ocean heat storage also show high regional variability. The latter observation has led to questions about whether the rate of 20th century sea level rise, based on poorly distributed historical tide gauges, is really representative of the true global mean. Such a possibility has been the object of an active debate, and the discussion is far from being closed.

Although a different technique, the statement is in line with Mashers' reporting "Data ... has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend." and "Khandekar ... pointed to recent research demonstrating SLR had actually declined in the latter half of the 20th century."


RE: Hmm
By Ajax9000 on 12/12/2007 6:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I then contacted two other scientists who, though neither had a view as strong as Morner's, both agreed that the IPCC was inflating the issue.

Out of interest, who were they?

No, I'm not asking for names; I'm just wondering their individual positions on climate change could be generally categorised as pro, anti, or neutral. I'm not suggesting that you did, but for arguments sake if you only talked to two climate change sceptics then that couldn't be regarded as objective journalisim.


RE: Hmm
By Ajax9000 on 12/12/2007 7:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Damn edit button :-)

Out of interest, who were they?

No, I'm not asking for names (as you mentioned Dr. Madhav Khandekar); I'm just wondering their individual positions on climate change could be generally categorised as pro, anti, or neutral. I'm not suggesting that you did, but for arguments sake if you only talked to two climate change sceptics then that couldn't be regarded as objective journalisim.


RE: Hmm
By masher2 (blog) on 12/12/2007 8:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
The first was Khandekar, the second was another IPCC reviewer who asked that he not be cited by name. I did attempt to contact a third, who is decidedly "pro" global warming, but received no response before the article went to print.


RE: Hmm
By zpdixon on 12/11/2007 6:26:30 PM , Rating: 3
(I have nothing against you phattyboombatty)

Am I the only one who finds astonishing the number of ill-informed posts in this thread showing that people don't understand at all the mechanisms causing melting ice to rise the sea level ? Quick fact list:

1. The fact that ice density is lower than water density is irrelevant with respect to sea level rises (why ? -> see the other 100 explanations already given in this thread: floating ice displaces a volume of water equal to its weight, the experiment of ice melting in a glass, the top 1/10th of an iceberg above water level is where the extra ice volume is, etc).

2. Sea levels rise because ice over land ends up melting in the oceans.

3. Another factor causing the sea levels to rise is the expansion of sea water as the oceans warm.


RE: Hmm
By Gumby16 on 12/11/2007 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're correct in your experiment. When a free floating ice cube melts in a glass of water, there is no change in the water level because the ice is already displacing its own volume in the liquid.

However, when LAND ICE (such as glaciers or permafrost) melts, the sea level does increase. In this case, you're adding new water to the system.

When Arctic sea ice melts, there is no change in sea level. When Greenland or East Antarctic ice sheets melt, there is a change in sea level because those ice sheets are grounded, not floating.


RE: Hmm
By decapitator666 on 12/12/2007 5:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
You are right about that but you forget that large amounts of snow and ice are stored on top of landmasses. When this melts it will add dramatically to the water levels of the sea.

Like having the ice cubes melting in a funnel above your glass of water..


RE: Hmm
By excrucio on 12/13/2007 12:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't the volume of the ice occupy the space needed and when it melts all it does is continue to occupy the same space? except in liquid.


Hello?!?!?
By mshihadeh on 12/11/2007 1:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does falsification of data for sea level rise mean that global warming is a political fabrication? SLR is only ONE of the possible side effects of global warming. Not to mention the fact that even the most "green" politicians have fought the theory until recently, so I don't see how they made it up. I love how everyone screams about how much they know about the subject but have OBVIOUSLY not done any real research about it, but are rather jumping to conclusions just like the global warming bandwagoners they are complaining about.




RE: Hello?!?!?
By Ringold on 12/11/2007 3:22:54 PM , Rating: 4
Of course politicians are jumping on the band wagon -- they want to get re-elected! Saying, particularly outside of America, that they aren't ready to buy in to global warming would be like an atheist running for Govenor of Kansas. Political suicide, regardless of party.

The idea it's a political fabrication is also not born necessarily of believing or disbelieving various biased groups data, but by observing the actions of politicians and political groups involved in global warming. Former European communists have joined the green movement -- that's the first red flag. In America, it was initially an almost exclusively an issue of the liberal fringes of the Democrat party. The origins, therefore, are concerning. Moving beyond origins, the schemes with which to combat this problem also conveniently look like ideas long championed by those political factions -- massive wealth redistribution, annihilation of high consumers through the power of the state, and ultimately global wealth redistribution rather than just on a national level. Karl Marx, and many communists since, have known that absolute crisis is required for communism (and by extension, socialism) to flourish. By the fact that government control of the economy would be extending, even aside from the issue that that control would be damaging, means that economic freedom would be on the wain -- a socialists dream. Almost on cue, the UN starts asking the US to cough up $40B to the third world. That's just the start.

All the pieces come together to raise huge red flags, sound the battle horns, and start a call to arms among many people; a "crisis", or "planetary emergency" coming from the communist/socialist fringe of the political left, which stands to gain hugely, that requires planetary assaults on economic output and a huge extension of the power of government. You've got to understand, too, that in America some parts of the political right in particular have a powerful libertarian streak that runs all the way back to the founding fathers of the nation. It's a perfect storm; when you see Tories in England for example jumping on the bandwagon, they're simply trying to survive and figure it's better to join the enemy rather than stand and fight. Note the internal disagreements they've had.

It also further escalates the problem when the political lefts fields so many people to oppose expansion of nuclear power, one simple solution to energy security as well as global warming.

Perhaps it's all fabrication, perhaps not. Even if it were all true, this sort of battle would continue because it is at its very foundations a proxy war between communism/socialism and neo-classical liberalism / conservatism. (without googling, I think that's what a George Washington would be).


RE: Hello?!?!?
By mshihadeh on 12/11/2007 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
So basically, no one can think for themselves. That, and they are simply naive.

And don't get me started on nuclear power being a solution. Its not even close.

I am not saying that global warming is or is not happening. I am simply saying that one possible outcome of global warming has being challenged does not warrant a dismissal of the entire theory.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By Ringold on 12/11/2007 6:00:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So basically, no one can think for themselves. That, and they are simply naive.


The masses are ignorant; Steve Jobs has his ignorant masses, Al Gore has his. Some groups of people can be lead around.. you can see propaganda as far back as you can probably go in recorded history. I'm at least familiar with it as far as ancient Greece and the Romans.

quote:
And don't get me started on nuclear power being a solution. Its not even close.


Er.. Okay. Lost all credibility with me now. Nice job.

quote:
I am not saying that global warming is or is not happening.


I tiptoed around that aspect of the issue, and focused solely on the political motivations that drive the issue which bear no resemblance to the scientific ones either way. For example, what does fuel standards and oil taxes have to do with global warming and energy security? Nothing. Anyone familiar with economics can tell you if that was the concern they'd tax carbon emission and content for global warming and would encourage domestic drilling and coal and nuclear probably for the latter. Taxes could be set at levels calculated such that incentives would then line up for smaller cars for most while some can choose to pay the expense of larger ones, and power utilities would have financial incentives, and therefore responsibility to shareholders, to switch away from producing CO2. Instead the proposals implement class warfare mixed with the "solutions" for our "crisis"; of course there's going to be massive resistance, and fighting socialism has frankly been giving the moribund Republican party more life this year than it has had since 1994.

That, and they're a little pugnacious and spiteful, but the end result is the same.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By mshihadeh on 12/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hello?!?!?
By Fenixgoon on 12/11/2007 10:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
ANY new energy project will be ridiculously expensive and will take a LONG time, be it wind, solar, hydro, gas, coal, oil, or nuclear.

nuclear waste can actually be re-used in breeder reactors, but thanks to NIMBYism, none exist AFAIK in the US. Leftover waste is stored in sealed concrete(and lead, I think) containers, which are then shipped to mountains where they will sit. The US produces about 2000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year, compared to the 5.8 BILLION tons of CO2 in 2003 from conventional power plants. So you'd like to stick with coal, then?

wind? solar? please - both take up MASSIVE amounts of land to produce relatively LITTLE electricity, especially when compared to a nuclear plant. In addition, wind and solar do not have consistent power outputs, again, unlike nuclear. I don't know much about power engineering, but I'm pretty certain load balancing is easier with a constant output.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By dblind1 on 12/12/2007 10:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with fenixgoon on the nuclear solution. Any other technology that could produce 'green' power cannot compete with nuclear power. Right now, we can produce nuclear power plants to help remove power reliance from coal and oil. Any other power tech that I have read about was still decades away from actually producing more energy. If they work out cold fission or fusion, then great. Build it and they will come. Right now though, we can build nuclear reactors that can provide energy now (relatively speaking). And lets not forget that some of that ten year build time is from the red tape from all the environmentalist and left wingers that want to 'help' the environment but refuse to use one of the best solutions that is available today.

You also mentioned cost of the power plant. Have you seen the studies on the cost per watt generated by the different types of power generating plants. I've seen many an article on it here and on other sites? Nuclear, at worse, is equal to coal while in other cases is said to be half that (or more) of coal. Secondly, this being the US where capitalism abounds, would our existing nuclear plants continue to produce energy if they were not turning a profit? The other things to consider are all the cons to these other sources of electricity which none of the enviro-nazis do. Solar? Well, lets just do a little deforestation for a solar power station. After all, plants don't grow very well with out sunlight, and solar is going to take a lot of land to fill power needs. Wind? Well, the wind doesn't blow all the time so be prepared for blackouts. Got lots of moving parts for the hundreds of windmills in our power farm .. means lots of maintenance. Oh, and lets not forget the possible impact on the local bird population (doh .. the last insert bird species here died today as it flew into a windmill).

Now, I'm from Mississippi where we have a nuclear power plant (so it is already in my backyard). I've even been there. They had tight security even before 9/11 and safety for the public and its employees seemed to be one of the number one goals of the plant. I would love for them to expand/update it to provide more power for the south.

So the short answer is, there is no single solution that can be implemented to move even a fraction of our power needs to the green side in under 10 years. With the introduction of electric only cars coming out in the next 5, power needs will only increase (greatly). The only way to do this is nuclear where we can at least contain the environmental contamination. Now, I'm all for the Zero co2 emission coal plants, we need those, too. As for solar? I would love to have them on my roof (which currently only serves make my house hotter during the Mississippi summers) and lessen my electrical draw from these 'polluting' energy sources - and hopefully save some money in the log run. The truth is, there is no real one answer, but to totally dismiss nuclear is a huge mistake. When done right, it is the cleanest, cheapest, most constant energy sources around.

Finally, to get back to the article, I think a lot of the 'we are going to drown the world' alarm-ism is just that. Another way to push someone's philosophy down our throats. I lived through the 80's were we were going to have to live on top of trash because no one was recycling. CAPTAIN PLANET WILL SAVE US!!!! Not that recycling was bad, but scaring the planet and pushing it just to get in office or gain popularity/funding? As someone said earlier, at least it did make us stop and think about what we were doing to the planet. However, extremism is just another word for nut job. It is the one thing that no one can argue with the Catholics about, it is all about moderation. I best stop here before they put a max number of characters on the body of the posts.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By Ringold on 12/12/2007 12:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
The other two covered it pretty well, but I'll also add that a lot of the reason it takes 10-15 years, and in some cases much, much longer to build a nuclear powerplant is because of heavy government regulation in the former case and NIMBY and traveling left-wing extremist activists which cause as much trouble as they can in a bid to kill the project in the latter case.

If the process were shorter, and extremists could be bulldozed, nuclear plants could be put up at a much quicker rate. The reactors already under construction in Texas, for example, will need 3 1/2 years or so for full approval, then be done by 2014 -- in other words, no more then 3.5 years from today if you ignored the regulatory burden. That's a pretty big gap from your supposed 10 years, and even with the approval time, 7 years isn't bad. Of course, new plants take longer to be approved; these are at an existing site that was already.. partly approved..

Also, the latest generation of plants bear no resemblance as far as I can tell to the older generation. They're simpler, more efficient, cheaper, and safer. "Look it up," as you like to say.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By mshihadeh on 12/12/2007 7:04:26 PM , Rating: 1
Even after ALL of those arguments, nuclear power still seems like a terrible solution. I have way too many things to react to, but here are a few that stuck out to me.

1. Breeder reactors have a HUGE cost that goes along with the reprocessing of them, which is why they are not currently being used.

2. Shipments of the waste to storage sites, especially if these were increased in large quantities, are subject to terrorist attacks who could then use the plutonium to make nuclear weapons.

3. You are not going to shorten the 10 year process it takes to get these things made. Not by much, at any rate. And whoever said it takes just as long to get a windfield or solar plant up and running needs to check their info.

4. Back to the nuclear waste. Doesn't anybody understand that we have no idea what to do with this highly, highly toxic stuff? Oh yeah, well who cares, lets just increase the rate at which it is produced and worry about it later. Isn't that what got us into this clean energy situation in the first place? How can we even consider this as an alternative?

I just don't understand how anybody who actually wants to get away from production of dirty energy could support this method. Its another quick fix because we don't know what the hell else to do. Instead of finding a good solution, we just want to hurry up and find one that removes the immediate pollutants in exchange for one that we don't have to worry about until later. Which, if you can't figure it out, will probably put us in an even worse situation then we are in now.

And Ringold, I do like to say "look it up" because I am not a friggen encyclopedia. I do not have all day to look these things up for people. I am too busy trying to get my degree so I can actually do something about this mess instead of sitting on a message board all day trying to impress people with my knowledge that I acquired surfing the internet.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/12/2007 8:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Back to the nuclear waste. Doesn't anybody understand that we have no idea what to do with this highly, highly toxic stuff? "

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of the field realizes that we have not just one, but several solutions to nuclear waste disposal. It's literally a nonissue, a bugaboo created by those opposed to nuclear power.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By Fenixgoon on 12/13/2007 12:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
2) you don't think shipments already contain large amounts of material? hell, you can find burial sites from the DOE and NRC. not to mention you'd have a hell of a time smuggling it out of the US for reprocessing purposes.
fear mongering doesn't help anyone in any situation

3) it might take 10 years to build, but nuclear power plants produce much more than wind and solar.

4) waste storage is perfectly safe. burial sites are in the middle of nowhere for a reason - so radiation cannot affect anyone or anything.
if you noticed, we produce 3,000,000 times less nuclear waste than CO2 (5.8billion tons CO2 vs 2000 tons, can find from DOE). unlike cars (~20% CO2 emissions), industry is the #1 producer of CO2, so if you REALLY want to reduce CO2, you reduce it in industry, not in vehicles.

nuclear power puts less nuclear material in the air than coal (howstuffworks.com). I'm sure you'll be happy to know that 50% of US produced energy comes from coal.

Wind and solar are just like ethanol - so much goes into producing them, yet we receive little return. Power density means a lot when you talk about energy produced/area.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By JS on 12/11/2007 10:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
You kinda sound like the people claiming that the Bush administration et al. planned 9/11 in their quest for total world domination. But you bought the other side's conspiracy theory.

To me, you all sound ridiculous.


RE: Hello?!?!?
By Ringold on 12/12/2007 12:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
I sound like a conspiracy theorist? Point out where I'm off base with the fringe elements of the left wing pushing these economically inane solutions, which serve more to expand federal power over the economy and engage in class warfare. The only sensical thing ever done was Europe's emissions trading scheme. They screwed that up by handing out credits like candy, but have taken steps to resolve that. If that was the only thing on the table, and it were global in nature, then I'd see no communist thrust coming through, just a response to a problem. As I'm sure you're aware, though, the war on the "planetary emergency" has gone far beyond just the emission trading scheme. Unlike Bush's supposed move for world domination, of which no evidence exists and no trend is clear, the start of global wealth redistribution in the name of global warming has already started! You can see some of it with the Maldives in masher's article, and also the UN coming hat-in-hand to the evil, vile, filthy "rich" countries looking for $40B from the US and as much from others.

I just pointed out how it all has come together up to this point. Sure, some of it is a little convoluted; some of the parts, such as the well intentioned conservationists, may be totally unaware of the role they play..but Greenpeace, on the other hand at least, is fully aware, and so are left-wing politicians who are thrilled to finally have a big issue filling their sails.


and this is a surprise?
By Screwballl on 12/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: and this is a surprise?
By mshihadeh on 12/11/2007 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only way we will be able to really shut these tree huggers up...


Wow. Talk about prejudice. I am a "tree-hugger" and I think this falsification of data is disgusting, so you really don't need to be lumping me into the same group as them.

Thanks for giving everyone who cares about the future of the planet YOU live on and off of a bad name.


RE: and this is a surprise?
By Ringold on 12/11/2007 3:03:35 PM , Rating: 1
Thank the IPCC, and in the last decade eco-terrorists on the Left Coast, for painting a negative picture of the entire environmental conservation movement in the minds of many people, not him. He just repeated what generally holds true for the majority of the vocal environmentalists. We don't often ever hear from moderate ones.


RE: and this is a surprise?
By mshihadeh on 12/11/2007 3:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
This is because the moderate ones are busy doing something about it instead of pointing fingers.

As much as I hate to admit it, extremism has its positives. It brings attention to environmentalism, and while a lot of it may be negative, attention is attention. There are enough intelligent people in this world (though it is very difficult to believe sometimes) that they will take this negative attention and investigate it, and eventually the air will clear. Figuratively AND literally (hopefully). Although this method irritates the hell out of me on a daily basis, it may be the only way to get it done.


RE: and this is a surprise?
By porkpie on 12/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: and this is a surprise?
By mshihadeh on 12/11/2007 4:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, what I said was FAR from complimentary. Second, I never said the work they did was good. I simply said that out of all the garbage they produce, something good may come of it.

I was being far from hypocritical, if you actually READ my post.


RE: and this is a surprise?
By porkpie on 12/11/2007 4:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
Saying "Well I don't like the extremists, but there are a lot of positives that come out of what they do" is a bit like saying, "Well I didn't like Hitler, but there were a lot of positives that came out of his rule over Germany".


RE: and this is a surprise?
By Parhel on 12/11/2007 5:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't like you, but your post is a wonderful example of Godwin's Law.

I'm only kidding. But, you seem to be saying that you either have to 100% disagree with someone or 100% agree with them. Is that correct?


RE: and this is a surprise?
By diablofish on 12/11/2007 5:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
I can think of some positives that came out of the experience of having Nazi Germany:

1 - It largely convinced the US to join the United Nations after it had failed to join the defunct League of Nations after WWI. Had the US been a part of such an organization at the end of WWI, the League of Nations would have had more power in enforcing the Treaty of Versailles.

2 - It caused the world to realize that making hurtful treaties like the Treaty of Versailles might not be such a good idea as extremists like Hitler can use them to rally support for an unjust cause.

3 - WWII was an early demonstration of the power of a relatively new medium: broadcast media's uses for propaganda on both sides of the war.

Certainly events like the Holocaust, the massive loss of life due to a second World War, and many other events of Hitler's power in Germany were tragic and negative. But to say that nothing positive was learned from those events is a gross misstatement of reality.


RE: and this is a surprise?
By porkpie on 12/11/2007 6:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
In 1, you're saying enforcing the Treaty would have been a good thing. In 2, you're saying the exact opposite. Which is it?

Your point is moot anyway, as the UN is exactly like the League of Nations in this respect. It will never enforce a treaty or ruling against a powerful nation. "Enforcement" requires the use of force, and thats something the UN never has the balls to do.


RE: and this is a surprise?
By diablofish on 12/12/2007 12:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm not. I just used a poor example of a treaty (or other resolution) to enforce. Thank you for pointing out this item so I could clarify.

But you don't disagree that just because the situation is bad doesn't mean that we can't learn good lessons. So my point is not moot, since my point wasn't about the collective cojones of the UN, but rather that your analogy was poor.